.44 or .45 Colt? Blackhawk or Redhawk/S&W 29?

I want a decent revolver to carry while packing out meat and to shoot elk and deer occassionally with. Cost is a major factor as well since I don't have any. Anybody have any suggestions regarding the benefits and drawbacks to the different choices?

45 colt hands down. Blackhawk or Super redhawk is your own preference. I have owned a Blackhawk since 1976, Liberty Model, and it has served me very well in that time. Have owned a Taurus RB in 454 that I only loaded with very hot heavy for caliber bullets in 45 Colt. With the Super Redhawk or the Blackhawk loaded with heavy bullets the 45 Colt will out do the 44. Even the smaller facrories are finally catching on to the fact that the 45 Colt is not what it was when it first came on the market.

Based on costs, and packability, I think the BH is the winner, by a head in front of the Smith. I give a slight nod to the BH for being stronger, while at the same time likeing the normally excellent Smith trigger and the double action ability. Usually you can find a good used BH cheaper than a 29 or 629, but if you come on a good buy on a Smith I wouldn't hesitate.

If you are used to heavy recoil and reload, you can wring a bit more absolute power out of a .45 but I wouldn't base a decision solely on that, I would buy the first one, either a Smith or a BH, in good shape for a good price that I found and either caliber will be satisfactory. If maximum power is a real factor, then you are back to the BH or the RH. IMO, most heavy loads for sixguns are overkill for their intended uses on deer and other similar game. Your gun will last longer, and you will enjoy shooting it more with mid power loads, appropriate to the game.

Nothing against the RH, but it is pretty clunky for your described uses, but they tend to be accurate and are built like the proverbial brick outhouse.

Bottom line is, all 3 are excellent, and you have to decide which factors are the most important for your uses.

[ 08-02-2002, 09:10: Message edited by: Gatogordo ]

Can the single action Blackhawk take hot loaded .45 colt safely? How does its strength compare to the standard Redhawk? thanks

I am an avid fan of the .45 Long Colt. I sold off both of my .44 mags years ago and went with the Colt. In my opinion it is a much more versatile round than the .44 mag. My personal gun is a Colt Anaconda with a 6" bbl (which I love). I have loads ranging from 185gr & 200gr hollow points for home defense, to 255gr hardcast lead plinking rounds for general can dancing sessions with the family, to full house 335gr hardcast barn burners at 1300fps that will knock all the bark off a tree at 50 paces (they make the hand tingle too!). I would imagine that the 335's would fill your requirements nicely.

That being said, I think the Ruger Blackhawk would be a better choice, cheaper (than either the Colt or the S&W), tough as nails, and accurate. I also think you should ONLY consider a .45 Long Colt if you intend to handload ALL of your ammunition. The factory Long Colt stuff is all sh*t in my opinion (with the exception of the CorBon defense ammo). If you want to shoot factory ammo, and not wanting to reload, I strongly advise you to go with the .44 mag.

jeremy w,

Ruger is the best and only choice for serious shooter in both calibers.

To tell you what you need between these 2 calibers I suggest you to look at very carefully this following website http://hodgdon.com/data/

You will see loads for heavy bullets for both calibers and only for FA, Ruger and T/C revolver not for S&W

45 Colt bullets from 240 gr till 360 gr
44 Mag bullets from 200 gr till 355 gr

After have seen it in detail you can do your own choice.

jeremy w,
Here is a real good article you should read:
http://www.sixgunner.com/linebaugh/dissolving.htm

I agree with BigBores and Paul H, but I would caution you to get your hands on them, and maybe even shoot, before you buy. There is a lot of difference in how the several guns feel, and how they recoil. With 240gr bullets, I doubt that you'd have trouble with any, but with heavy stuff you may prefer a Bisley if you can find one. The Smith has all kinds of grips available. If you like the Smith and will settle for the loads it can handle, it is probably a MUCH easier gun to carry and to get into action.

THere seem to be a reasonable number of used .44 Mags around. Lots of times, you can try out a used gun.

Good luck!

As an owner of a Smith 29 and two 45 Colt Blackhawks, I'd say you should do whatever you have to to get your hands on a sample of each and try them out.

The Smith action is unbeatable for smoothness, and offers the capability for double action firing, something that could be critical in a defense situation. The Blackhawk definitely requires more handwork to fire than the Smith.

R-WEST

I have shot both the Redhawk and S&W in .44 mag and enjoyed both. At first the Blackhawk looked ugly but lately it has grown on me.
My only concern with going the Blackhawk route is not having double action for bear attacks. The more I think about it the more I think I should get the BH in .45 Colt and shoot the hell out of it to become proficient and not worry.

[ 08-02-2002, 22:18: Message edited by: jeremy w ]

Or - how about the Redhawk? Double action AND 45 Colt AND built like a tank. Unfortunately, it's pretty clunky and just doesn't feel as good as either the Smith (probably the best "feeling" big-bore handgun of all time?) or the BH

Good luck with whatever your final decision turns out to be. Hard to go wrong with any of your selections.

R-WEST

I have a friend who's sole hunting revolver is a Ruger redhawk 44 mag, well, actually he has a pair, one 7 1/2" the other a 4". The 4" was worked over by Magnaport, and I'd stack it up against any S&W in the smoothness departent. Then again, the customizing cost about the same as the gun.

Paul -

I had Clark's work over my Redhawk, and, it certainly did make a difference in the smoothness of the action, no question about it. To me, though, the Redhawk, just doesn't feel properly proportioned, or something, especially with those dinky little factory grips. I put some Pachmayrs on mine, and it made a big difference, but, it just doesn't compare to the way the 29 feels. Feelings are subjective, I know, and, a big guy with big hands might think the opposite.

The Redhawk's definitely built to last, though. It's a big, heavy-duty, no nonsense handgun, for sure.

R-WEST

The redhawk I shot had a Hogue monogrip on it and it shot nice for me. We don't have terrible much in the way of used 29s or Redhawks around here and the price is right for the Blackhawk. I am impressed after reading the link posted above regarding the .45.

Jeremy W,

My preference is for the Blackhawk Bisley in .45 Colt. I have two and they are the only handguns I really shoot anymore. One is unaltered and on the other I had the barrel cut to 5.5". The shorter barrel definitly makes a difference in ease of handling and portability. There is the standard in blue with the 7.5" barrel and a few in stainless steel with a 5.5" barrel. I just handled a stainless steel one the other day that my dealer had and it was quite nice. My Dad has a Redhawk in .45 Colt with a Houge Monogrip and with identicle heavy loads I say the perceived recoil is greater with the Redhawk than the Bisley. I also find the Bisley grip design is more comfortable than the standard Blackhawk or Redhawk for my hands.
Do you cast your own bullets? Is so find a LBT design mould. This is the handgun hunting bullet. I have taken two elk, one cow and one medium sized bull, with the .45 Colt and 325 gr. LBT long flat nose bullets. Both were one shot kills and neither elk moved more than a few yards after being hit. Other handgunners who use the LBT designs relate similar performance. Anyway, if you don't cast your own CastPerformance and Beartooth Bullets sell LBT designs at reasonable prices. Both Hornady and Hogdon publish heavy .45 colt data and there are other sources as well. For holsters I like and use the Milt Sparks 200AW. It allows easy and quick access but also keeps a secure hold your sidearm.
As far as a bear attack goes I don't think that single vs. double action matter. Now I have never been attacked by a bear, or even felt threatened by one, so I know that I don't know. But the way I think it through is that if a determined bear takes five or six full house shots from a .44 mag or .45 Colt and keeps on charging or biting you are in such a serious predicament that you probably would not have the time or ability to reload even a double action.
I think that practice, and lots of it, matters more than anything.

[ 08-03-2002, 07:23: Message edited by: DavidReed ]

I don't cast my own bullets right now but I need an excuse to start. It is interesting that Linebaugh gives his wife and son 260 slugs at only 900fps for deer hunting out to 100 yards. Seems like a 325 at 1200 would drop an elk pretty easily.

jeremy w There is plenty of good info on this thread. The best advice is to shoot both the Ruger SA and the S&W and get the one you like the best. The slight difference in cost is a small matter, just save a little longer and get the one you like the best. I have used a S&W 4" model 29 as my "carrying" handgun for 30 years. I have had the gun tuned up twice. Why the 44? My first "deer" rifle was a 44 Ruger Carbine, My third handgun was a 44 super blackhawk, then I got the S&W 4 and 6 1/2". The 44 has served me well. I like the double action of the S&W for defense against animals and 2 legged varmints too. With speed loaders and some practice I think it is a better "system" that a SA for protection. I cast my own 250gr. bullets but for Bear protection I use Garretts Hammerheads, or Federal 300 gr. cast core, however I think my 250gr and 22.5 gr. of 2400 would work, but "everyone" says @300grs. is the way to go for BIG mean stuff. A 240 HP did not shoot through a cow Elks head from the side, my 250 load went right through. Which ever one you choose, use heavy cast bullets for Bear protection. On the S&W rubber grips take the sting out of the heavy loads. I shot some of the Garrett, Federal 300gr., and my 250/2400 loads in a S&W "Mountain" revolver last weekend, this pistol may go on my Bear hunt this Sept. It is very light in the holster. I use a crossdraw thumb break. It is accessible while seated, on horseback, or while backpacking. In rain I leave my raincoat open from the bottom allowing easy access, yet the gun and holster do not get wet. Let us know what you choose and how it shoots.

Either will work. I find the SA triggers on the Smiths to come out better as a rule. With something of this level of recoil, a first class trigger is a must.
I second the advice to shoot them, and select the one you shoot best.
The Rugers, especially, the single action models, are good and tough. The SA will take more knocking around, the RH will take hot loads well.
The DA feature is a non-issue, to me. I used to qualify with a .44 Magnum on a combat course. And I did do well. But the truth is, if you need to hit something, SA is the only way to go.
As far as loading hotter than the .44 Magnum, I must point out that no major bullet maker, or Ruger, recommends the .45 Colt be loaded over 20,000 psi. The bullet makers recommend 36,000 psi for the .44 Magnum. All one needs to do is look up the data published by these people.
You really don't need any more power than this anyway. Heck, Elmer Keith, in his great book, Sixguns by Keith, recounted many instances where the standard, factory .45 Colt rounds did in all sorts of tough critters, crazy broncs, cattle, etc. As well as tales of the .44 Magnum's performance. E

I went to our local gunshop today and handled most of their Blackhawks. Most of them were "vaquero" style with fixed sights, presumably to cater to "cowboy action shooting" just like most aspects of the shooting hobby around here lately. The Blackhawks seem to be well constructed and shootable. My choice in caliber is a bit more shady. Some swear by .45 colt, others say that higher intensity stuff will wrap a revolver around your skull. I will probably get the one that the particular revolver I like is chambered in. I think it would be fun to load the .45 but the .44 has the advantage of brass and ammo availability.
Is it easier to find moulds for .44 or .45 caliber?

I'm going to say this one more time, as several others mentioned above, with all due respect to the guys who think that you have to shoot the heaviest, hottest possible loads in a sixgun to kill something, unless you are an exception to the rule, you will find that a 240 to 250 grain bullet moseying along at 1100 to 1200 Fps second will kill anything that you are likely to shoot, and will be a helluva lot easier on the shooter and the gun. I guess the one exception to that would be if I knew I was in bear territory(or maybe specifically elk hunting), I might put a couple of heavy rounds in the first couple of chambers. The theory being, if you don't do maximum damage with the first 2, then the bear will be plenty close enough for your next 4 medium loads to do all that you are capable of.

It may seem strange but I think the 300gr. Federal cast core, the Garrett Hammerhead, and the Speer 270 Gold Dot SP have less sting than some of the factory 240 or my 240/250 loads with 22.5 of 2400. They might rise up a little more but do not seem to be as "sharp" in the hand. This is from a S&W mod 29 or a mountain revolver both 44 Mag. For a primary hunting revolver a SA is an excellent choice, but for a "carry" revolver a 4" S&W 44 Mag is the best choice for me, My wife carries one also, normally with 2 Speer shotshells and 4 240 gr cast with 9.2 gr. of Unique. [lots of snakes where we hunt, rattlers, copperhead and water moccasins]. In bear country she uses 300 gr. Federal cast core or 270 Speer.

I had the same situation a little while ago and found a 5.5" Redhawk in .44 suited me best.

I shot PPC quite a bit so DA revolvers work for me better. I like the light weight and trigger of the S&W but not the cost, the relative fragility and the shorter cylinder (precludes REALLY heavy bullets). The Ruger fit my purposes as well and was considerably cheaper. It certainly doesn't sit in the hand as naturally as a Glock or 1911 though.

I no longer reloaded .44 or .45 Colt then, so "mission useful" factory ammo was a consideration too. A .45 Redhawk would have been my second choice if I could find Garrett ammo.

Any of your choices will work fine, I'm guessing. Great to have choices, ain't it?

Redial

With cowboy action shooting getting so big I have found no problem getting brass or bullets for the .45 Colt. Being in your same situation I would say get the gun you like the best regardless of the caliber. .44 mag or .45 LC either one are proven calibers. Personaly for what I wanted I opted for a Tracker in .41 Mag. My brother went for the appeal of the Blackhawk in .45LC. I like shooting my .41 more than his .45. I don't expect to run into any mean bears in PA. though.

I have a SBH in 44, and a 5,5" barrel....I think the 44 is the better alternative if you don�t handload.. and if you do...well then you should get a 45.
I usually pack the 44 with 20,6 grains of Vihtavouri N110 over a 300 grain slug. This is ample bearmedicine if the need arises....

Let's see, cost and packing are the citeria. 29's are easier to pack but they cost more. I'd have to say a short barrel (4 5/8" or 5 1/2") Blackhawk. As mentioned, if you reload, the 45, if you don't, the 44. - Dan

Looks like I'm shooting for a Blackhawk. I haven't totally decided on caliber yet but if I do get a BH I think the .45 would be the choice to make for the sake of posterity. I would have no problem handloading for it.
According to what I've read it may be a good idea to measure tolerances on several BHs until I find one that is fairly tight. What do yall' think about checking tolerance in a gun you would intend to use with stout loads (in .45 colt of course)?

Measuring the Blackhawk before purchase is always a good idea. I had mine sent to the best gunsmith in Sweden, where it was refitted with a new cylinder basepin, honed cylinders, opened throating, fitted with Ajax pearlgrips with gold inlays, trigger tuned and lockwork polished. It will will send those 300 grain XTP into one ragged hole the entire afternoon...
...you can look at it on

http://home.swipnet.se/skyttedepa/hemmabyg.htm

Thats chambers!! not cylinders.... wonder how a Blackhawk would look with multiple cylinders!?? That would be one mean gun!!! Not to mention the holsters for the entire contraption!!!

Hey Made In Sweden, your pics look great. Where did you get that neat full length rib scope mount? Looks like just the ticket for those who want to scope out their Super Blackhawk but still retain the open sights (without buying the new Hunter model)....RW

For cost, strength, accuracy . . . Ruger Blackhawk in 44 magnum.

The 45 Colt Blackhawk is not built to the pressure specs of the 44 mag. frame. At least it wasn't last time I looked.

Cylinder cranes and double action triggers are just complications that you don't need.

I have a New Super Blackhawk, stainless, 10 1/2 inch bbl. This with both a shoulder holster and a belt holster. Basically it's a short stock carbine. We shoot target with it at 100 yds. I see silhouette shooters with these guns at 200 yds.

A shorter bbl. will compromise velocity, but might be easier to carry. The long bbl. is for hunting and target. You can load the 45 Colt to the level of the 44 mag. But the 44 mag Blackhawk is designed for magnum loads -- and more.

This thread has been inactive for a while so you might have already made your purchase. But, one thing that was only mentioned in passing and note explained, that I saw, was honing the cylinder throats of the 45 Colt Ruger Blackhawk.

For some reson 10 or 20 years ago when Ruger tightened up the throat dimension on their 45 Colts they overshot and made them smaller than the nominal bore size. The nominal bore size is .452, the throats on my two 45 Colt BH's, and all others I've seen & heard about in recent years, were bewtween .449 & .451. If you complain to Ruger they'll tell you that's within spec but, that's a cop-out so they aren't obligated to ream the cyclinder of every thight throated revolver they've made. None of the other calibers they chamber have throats tighter than bore dia.

That said, I still think the Ruger Blackhawk is the best value in big bore revolvers. They are inexpensive and servicable out of the box. And with a little tweaking they can be real tack drivers.

Mine would only shoot 1 load well with the factory tight throats, 300gr XTP's at 1250fps. It would put 5 of these into 3.5" at 50 yds with open sights. With most other loads it wouldn't group that well at 25 yds and cast bullets were even worse. And the bullets I wanted to shoot, 300gr LBT WFN, wouldn't even chamber of the tight throats.

Now I've had the throats opened up to .453 and it shoots nice little groups with the LBT cast bullets and the 300gr XTP's still shoot great. You can have a smith open up the throats for about $80 or do it yourself if you buy a reamer from Brownel's.

BTW: B-Square now makes a full length rib scope mount for Ruger Blackhawks. I put one on my 7-1/2" Bisely and a 2x Nikon and shot a 3 shot group with the afore mentioned 300gr XTP's of just 1.75" ... at 75 yds!

Good Luck & Good Shootin'

LK

I've used 44 mags primarily for years. A ruger Redhawk and a Dan Wesoon 44 V. Both double action revolvers. I was fortunate enough to win a Ruger Vaquero chambered for the 45 Colt cartridge last year at an NRA Banquet. I started working up loads and I've been quite impressed with the cartridge as well as the revolver. The Vaquero is really nothing more than a modified Blackhawk with many of the parts interchangable. I think you would be quite happy with the Blackhawk in 45 Colt or 44 Mag. I like them both, and the cartridges seem to give similar results. The only drawback, as I see it, is that the higher pressure 45 Colt loads can't be purchased as factory ammo, if that's an issue with you. The Ruger revolvers will handle the higher pressure loadings without any problems at all. It's understandable that factory ammo isn't available using the higher pressure loadings because of the "real issue" of someone feeding this ammo into a firearm that can't handle the pressure. I think no matter what you decide, you will be making a good choice judging from the choices you have listed.
Here's a picture of a Javelina I took using my Redhawk 44 Mag.


This is a picture of a Texas Dall I took with the little Vaquero earlier this year.


Here's a pic of the Dan Wesson 44 mag.



From left to right
45 Colt 250g Cast, 45 Colt 260g Nosler
44 Mag. 250g Cast, 44 Mag. 300g Sierra
Not that much difference in the calibers.

[ 09-21-2002, 19:20: Message edited by: GilaMonster ]